Bombay High Court
Mukesh Pandurang Bastav And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 23 November, 2017
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
WP. 3134-09
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No. 3134 OF 2009
1. Mukesh Pandurang Bastav, )
Aged 35 years )
2. Vilas Pandurang Bastav, )
Aged 37 years, )
Both residing at B/8, Sagar Pratap )
Coperative Housing Society, )
Gavanpada, Mulund (E) )
Mumbai 400 081 ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. State of Maharashtra )
through its Secretary, )
Tribal Development Department, )
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. )
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny )
Committee, Konkan Division, Thane )
through its Member - Secretary, )
having its office at Vartak Nagar )
Ward Office in Vedant Complex, )
Vartak Nagar, Thane (West) )
3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices)
Mumbai City, East Division, )
Dadar, Mumbai - 14. )
4. Municipal Corporation of )
Brihanmumbai through its )
1 / 12
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:23:32 :::
WP. 3134-09
Head Security Officer having )
his office at Security Board, )
12, Store Yard, Room No. 104, )
1st Floor, Dr. E. Mozes Road, )
Worli, Mumbai - 18. )
5. Executive Magistrate, )
Shriwardhan, Taluka Shriwardhan, )
District - Raigad. ... Respondents
***
Mr. R. K. Mendadkar a/w Tanaji Jadhav & Priyanka Shaw, for the
Petitioners.
Ms. Jyoti Jadhav, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 & 5.
Mr. P. M. Patil, for Respondent No. 4 - BMC.
***
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : NOVEMBER 17, 2017
PRONOUNCED ON : NOVEMBER 23, 2017
JUDGMENT [PER : MANISH PITALE, J.]
1. In our country Tribe / Caste is a recognised basis for
identifying groups and communities in order to implement the policy
of affirmative action including reservation. It cannot be disputed that
close blood relations and persons related to each other on the paternal
side belong to one and the same caste / tribe. It cannot be that father
belongs to a particular caste / tribe and the sons and daughters belong
2 / 12
WP. 3134-09
to another. Hence, uniformity of status in terms of belonging to a
particular caste / tribe is necessary to be recognised, so as to ensure
that members of the same family belonging to a caste / tribe to whom
benefits of reservation and other affirmative action have been granted,
are not deprived of such benefits.
2. In the instant petition, the grievance raised by the
Petitioners, who are brothers, is - as to how can they be deprived of
the status of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe - Mahadeo Koli, when
the claims of their own sister, a cousin and uncle have been recognised
as belonging to the said Scheduled Tribe and when findings in their
case have already attained finality.
3. The facts, in brief, of the present case are that both the
Petitioners have caste certificates dated 20.6.1994 issued in their
favour by the Executive Magistrate stating that they belong to the
Scheduled Tribe - Mahadeo Koli. On the strength of these
certificates, Petitioner No. 1 - Mukesh was appointed as Postal
Assistant on 6.10.1997 in the office of Respondent No. 3 and
Petitioner No. 2 was appointed as a Security Guard in November,
2003, in the office of Respondent No. 4. Their caste certificates were
3 / 12
WP. 3134-09
sent for scrutiny to Respondent No. 2 - Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee (for short "Scrutiny Committee"), which initiated
inquiry, including through Police Vigilance Cell to verify genuineness
of the aforesaid certificates issued by the Executive Magistrate in
favour of the Petitioners.
4. During the course of inquiry, following genealogy was
brought on record, which has not been disputed:
Genealogy
Gopal
________________________________|_________________________________
| | |
Pandurang Janardan Govind
| ______________|_____________ |
1) Pitambar Pandurang Satyabhama Nilkanth 1) Pritesh
2) Yashwant | | 2) Vishwas
1) Prashant 1) Yatin 3) Pramod
2) Vilas 2) Shailendra 4) Rajesri
3) Mukesh 3) Amit
4) Yamini
5. The Petitioners filed on record before the Respondent No.
2 - Scrutiny Committee, an order of this Court dated 24.3.1994 passed
in Writ Petition No. 1434 of 1994, wherein it was categorically held
that Yamini Bastav, the sister of the Petitioners belonged to the
Scheduled Tribe - Mahadeo Koli, and this Court had issued direction
for issuance of validity certificate in her favour.
6. The Petitioners heavily relied upon the aforesaid order
4 / 12
WP. 3134-09
passed in favour of their sister, and they contended that the tribe status
of siblings could not be different and that therefore, their claim of
belonging to Mahadeo Koli was required to be upheld.
7. Apart from this, the Petitioners had also placed on record
numerous documents in support of their claim. Yet, by the impugned
order dated 6.1.2009, the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee
held that the Petitioners failed to prove their claim of belonging to
Scheduled Tribe - Mahadeo Koli. Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny
Committee brushed aside the aforesaid order of this Court dated
24.3.1994 passed in favour of the sister of the Petitioners, by stating
that each case was required to be decided on its own merits. On this
basis, the Scrutiny Committee held that caste certificates dated
20.6.1994 issued by the Executive Magistrate in favour of the
Petitioners were invalid and consequently, it cancelled and confiscated
the certificates. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners have filed this
writ petition.
8. Mr. R. K. Mendadkar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Petitioners, has not only relied upon the order of this
Court dated 24.3.1994 passed in favour of the sister of the Petitioners,
5 / 12
WP. 3134-09
but he has further relied upon the caste validity certificates issued to
the first cousin i.e. Yatin Bastav and uncle Pramod Bastav of the
Petitioners, during pendency of this writ petition. The caste validity
certificates confirming the fact that the said cousin and uncle of the
Petitioners belong to the Scheduled Tribe - Mahadeo Koli, have been
issued in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 4.10.2013 passed
by this Court in two writ petitions, filed by them. The said judgment
and order dated 4.10.2013 has disposed of the two writ petitions
wherein it has been held and directed in the case of Yatin Bastav (Writ
Petition No. 8033 of 2004) that the caste validity certificate be issued
in his favour within four weeks of the said order, and in the case of
uncle - Pramod Bastav (Writ Petition No. 2925 of 2013), the matter
was remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for ascertaining the
relationship between the said Pramod and Yamini (sister of the
Petitioners) since her claim stood validated by the aforementioned
order dated 24.3.1994 passed by this Court.
9. Upon remand, the Scrutiny Committee found that the said
uncle of the Petitioners i.e. Pramod Bastav was indeed directly related
to Yamini Bastav, and therefore, caste validity certificate was issued to
6 / 12
WP. 3134-09
him. In pursuance of the said proceedings, the caste validity
certificate dated 25.7.2014 was issued in favour of Pramod Bastav
(uncle of the Petitioners), and the caste validity certificate dated
6.11.2013 was issued in favour of Yatin Bastav (first cousin of the
Petitioners). It is these caste validity certificates that have also been
relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioners in this writ
petition to claim that the Respondent No. 2 was not justified in
rejecting the claim of the Petitioners.
10. On the other hand, Ms. Jyoti Jadhav, the learned AGP
appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 submitted that Respondent
No. 2 Scrutiny Committee was justified in passing the impugned
order. It had evaluated claim of the Petitioners on merits although she
did not dispute the genealogy and the fact that Yamini Bastav is the
real sister of the Petitioners and further that Yatin Bastav is the first
cousin and Pramod Bastav is the uncle of the Petitioners.
11. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and perused the record, as also the common
judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 2925 of 2013 (Pramod
Bastav Vs. State of Maharashtra) and Writ Petition No. 8033 of 2004
7 / 12
WP. 3134-09
(Yatin Bastav Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.), relied upon by the
learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. The main issue that
arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the Scrutiny
Committee was justified in brushing aside the order of this Court
dated 24.3.1994 passed in Writ Petition No. 1434 of 1994 (Yamini
Bastav Vs. The Tahsildar & Executive Magistrate, Shriwardhan) while
holding against the Petitioners; similarly, whether the fact that validity
certificates granted to first cousin and the uncle of the Petitioners can
be ignored while examining Petitioners' claim. It cannot be disputed
that members of the same family belong to same caste / tribe. In fact,
it is only logical that uniformity is to be maintained insofar as the
decisions regarding caste / tribe claims of persons belonging to the
same family are concerned. A person inherits caste / tribe from the
paternal side and if genealogy of the family is not in dispute and the
record shows that caste validity certificates have been issued to close
blood relations on the paternal side, which have attained finality, there
is no reason why claims made on the basis of such validity certificates
cannot be granted. It would be a travesty if the claim of each and
every blood relation is put to scrutiny and verification by the Scrutiny
8 / 12
WP. 3134-09
Committee repeatedly despite caste validity certificates of close blood
relations available on record. It would be in the interest of the
verification process if such caste validity certificates of close blood
relations are relied upon and caste validity is granted, otherwise it
would be sheer waste of precious judicial time to keep on verifying
claims of close blood relations one after the other.
12. This Court on earlier occasions has held that when caste
validity certificate is granted on proper scrutiny to close blood
relations, it ought to be relied upon while verifying the caste / tribe
claim of other blood relations of paternal side. A Division Bench of
this Court has taken note of series of judgment and orders of this
Court while emphasising on uniformity in upholding caste / tribe
claim of near blood relations in the case of Ashwini Vilas Chavan,
Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Respondents 1 , to which
one of us (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) was a member and it has been held as
follows:
"Conclusion
"11. Strikingly, the legal and the constitutional rights,
benefits, the concessions and the relaxation are well
recognized. The genuine cases are required to be concluded
1 2017 (3) Mh.L.J. 953
9 / 12
WP. 3134-09
so also the un-genuine cases. The caste claim cases cannot
be decided stubbornly by clinging to the routine and stereo
type reasons. Once the committee validate the caste
certificate / claim, it binds not only the claiming person but
to the future generations of the whole family. All the
concerned are bound by the law of binding precedents
including the committee. The facts based caste claims need
to be decided keeping in mind the provisions of law and the
Judgments on the connected issues. The copies of the
judgments / orders are required to be placed on record of the
committee by the concerned parties. The committee to pass
the final order promptly so that future and further
consequential action arising out of it be complied with at the
earliest. The committee in no case deny the caste claim by
disregarding the law and the judgments. The scope and
power of the committee is very limited while deciding such
issues when there is no case of fraud or misrepresentation
made out from the record. The judgments so referred above
have concluded that the paternal side relatives' caste validity
certificate, unless quashed and set aside, must be relied
upon. The State and / or the concerned authority is required
to issue such circulars as observed in Sanjay Bajirao More
and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.2, to avoid delay
and physical and mental harassment to the concerned
persons who are seeking such caste certificates. This would
also avoid unnecessary litigation / conflicts with the State
and the related authorities when it comes to deciding the
rights flowing from the State reservation policy."
Thus, it is clear that when caste validity certificates have been granted
to close blood relations on the paternal side, the claims of other close
relations ought to be upheld. It is only in cases where the earlier caste
validity certificates of close blood relations are shown to have been
2 2015 (6) Mh. L.J. 822
10 / 12
WP. 3134-09
obtained by fraud / fabrication, a detailed scrutiny and verification of
the claims is required to be undertaken. The other situation in which
further inquiry and verification would be necessary is - where the
genealogy is disputed and it is found that there is any falsity or error in
the genealogy brought on record. In the absence of any such objection
raised, the caste validity certificates of close blood relations on the
paternal side are required to be accepted for granting validity to
subsequent claims.
13. In the instant case, from the genealogy quoted above, it is
clear that Yamini Bastav, Yatin Bastav and Pramod Bastav are all close
blood relations on the paternal side of the Petitioners. Yamini Bastav is
the real sister; Yatin Bastav is the first cousin; and Pramod Bastav is
uncle of the Petitioners. The caste validity certificates have been
issued to all three persons and they have attained finality. In the face
of these facts, as no objection is raised by the Respondents on either
the ground that the said caste validity certificates of the close relations
have been obtained by fraud / fabrication or that the genealogy is
erroneous / false, there is no reason why caste validity certificates
should not be granted to the Petitioners herein. The Respondent No. 2
11 / 12
WP. 3134-09
- Scrutiny Committee has committed an error in brushing aside the
order of this Court dated 24.3.1994 passed in Writ Petition No. 1494
of 1994 (supra) in favour of the real sister of the Petitioners. The
subsequent caste validity certificates issued by the Scrutiny
Committee to the first cousin and uncle of the Petitioners, show that
impugned order in the present case is unsustainable.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the following
terms:
(a) The impugned order dated 6.1.2009 passed by Respondent
No. 2- Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside.
(b) The Scrutiny Committee shall issue caste validity certificates
in favour of the Petitioners within four weeks on production of
an authenticated copy of this order.
(c) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[MANISH PITALE, J.] [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.]
Vinayak Halemath
12 / 12
